The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Studypool[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article for non-notable company. The references are either press releases or mere notices of funding. Notices of funding are not reliable sources for notability because they are indiscriminate, like listings in birth records. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the two TechCrunch articles don't seem like press releases, and there's a tiny paragraph about them in the Chicago Tribune, but that's not really "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary sources", so it looks like this doesn't quite make WP:CORP yet. OnionRing (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as my searches have found only a few links but nothing at all convincing which seems to be the summary here. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.